Dogged Blog

Testing

This is a test of Pet Connection blog issues. This is a test of Pet Connection blog issues. This is a test of Pet Connection blog issues. This is a test of Pet Connection blog issues.



This is a test of Pet Connection blog issues. This is a test of Pet Connection blog issues. This is a test of Pet Connection blog issues. This is a test of Pet Connection blog issues.



This is a test of Pet Connection blog issues. This is a test of Pet Connection blog issues. This is a test of Pet Connection blog issues. This is a test of Pet Connection blog issues.



This is a test of Pet Connection blog issues. This is a test of Pet Connection blog issues. This is a test of Pet Connection blog issues. This is a test of Pet Connection blog issues.



This is a test of Pet Connection blog issues. This is a test of Pet Connection blog issues. This is a test of Pet Connection blog issues. This is a test of Pet Connection blog issues.

Mandatory spay/neuter: Sacrificing animal lives to ideology

Dogs and cats are dying in shelters. Do you:

1. Work your ass off to pass a law that has never once worked to improve that situation and has, indeed, consistently made it worse, or...


2. Work to put in place the set of policies and procedures that have worked to bring every single community that is saving more than 90 percent of the dogs and cats that come into their shelter system to that goal?

It seems obvious, doesn't it, that the answer is number two. So why are so many self-proclaimed animal lovers dead-set on number one -- which is, in case you are new here, some form of mandatory spay/neuter law like California's SB 250, currently trying to find enough votes to pass?

For many such people, it's because they haven't thought it through or familiarized themselves with the facts. They figure only deadbeat pet owners don't spay or neuter their pets anyway, and they're just the folks they've been told are responsible for shelter killing, and so it seems like a no-brainer.

But if you do use your brain instead, by which I mean you actually investigate those communities that have succeeded or failed in ending the killing of homeless pets, or are very close to succeeding, you'll see a clear pattern.

None of the successful communities have mandatory spay/neuter laws in place. They have a similar set of programs -- low cost or free spay/neuter, trap-neuter-return for feral cats, foster programs, thriving volunteer programs, and a great relationship with rescue groups, local businesses, and the regular members of their community.

Those communities, like Los Angeles, that have implemented mandatory spay/neuter have instead seen their shelter intake and killing increase. There are no communities where that hasn't been the case.

That's because mandatory spay/neuter diverts resources from services like low-cost spay neuter to enforcement and creates new fines and penalties that lead people to give up their pets more readily than they otherwise would, leading to increased shelter intake and more killing.

Furthermore, it's already been established that the majority of unaltered pets belong to poor people, and the majority of those people would like to alter their pets if the service was accessible and affordable. Making those services even more difficult to obtain isn't just ineffective, it's cruel to both people and pets.

People who support mandatory/spay neuter because they honestly believe it will help and who have no other agenda usually change their minds when they learn these facts.

But there are many other people who don't, and this is why: They aren't really interested in saving animal lives. They are opposed, for a number of reasons, to the existence of sexually intact animals.

Some of them have moved beyond "sterilization as a surrogate marker of responsible pet ownership" into actually confounding the two things: Being responsible about pets doesn't mean you're, well, responsible for them, and control their reproductive behavior and health, but that you alter them, period.

Others really are opposed to the keeping of domestic pets. The lunatic fringe on the other side often makes it sound like this is the majority motivation of mandatory spay/neuter proponents, but that hasn't been my experience at all.

It is, though, the motivation of those who lead the movement for mandatory spay/neuter. They object on moral grounds to the deliberate breeding of animals by humans, and are often not even comfortable with the idea of domestication or keeping animals as companions.

These people have no desire to see the No-Kill movement succeed, nor to see its successes be emulated. They don't want shelters to stop killing, because they need animal lovers to blame and hate "irresponsible pet owners" in order to keep us all fighting among ourselves and to prevent us from ending the killing without a massive social shift in how people think about, care for, and envision companion animals.

This is why we see so many people insisting that as long as people don't do certain things that show they're responsible pet owners -- including spay/neuter but also a wide array of other behaviors, from becoming vegan to only training with treats and clickers to whatever their personal view of proper pet care is -- shelters will never be able to stop the killing.

They can't accept or believe, or allow people to know, that those communities that have stopped the killing -- Reno, Charlottesville, Ithaca and all the rest -- have done it without everyone in those communities becoming perfect saints.

Because if we can stop shelter killing without eradicating irresponsible pet ownership from the face of the earth.... well, that's where I have to stop. There's no "if" about it. We can and many communities have.

To those people who realize a wholesale moral makeover of every citizen of this country will never happen, that's good news. That's dancing in the streets news. Because it means we don't have to do anything impossible to stop the killing. We just have to do the simple, but difficult, things those communities have done.

But to those for whom the moral makeover is the real goal, it's a tragedy. To the best of them, it's just letting bad pet owners off the hook for their irresponsibility by removing the lethal (to the animals) consequences of their behavior.

To the worst of them, it's the loss of a valuable piece of propaganda in their war on the relationship between people and companion animals.

This is why I support the No-Kill movement and oppose mandatory spay/neuter: Because I don't want homeless pets to die, but to live.

I want them to live even though there are and will always be irresponsible people among us.

I want them to live even if it means that some people will take it as license to "dump" or "abandon" their pets at shelters, knowing they won't be killed. (Although one wonders how "irresponsible" they really are if they care about that in the first place.)

I want them to live more than I want my own personal vision of the ideal relationship between people and animals to become the law of the land.

Can you say the same thing?

Miss Kyrie Borzoi prefers not to share

One of Rawley's less-engaging (although entirely understandable) traits is an unwillingness to accept that Kyrie, my 11-year-old Borzoi, is never, ever going to play with him. Ever.



Frequently in the evening he starts play-bowing and barking at her, which she simply ignores like the Russian princess she is.



But Rawley is not what you'd call a "morning dog." I often have to put a leash on him to drag him out of bed for his morning walk. And most of the time, when we get back, he goes back to sleep while I make breakfast, check email, etc. In fact, I can't think of a time when he's pestered Kyrie in the morning -- until today.



Rawley had sleepily done his morning routine and was hanging out in the living room while I made breakfast. Kyrie was in the bedroom at the back of the house.



I heard them walking around, but that's not unusual, so I just kept doing what I was doing. Then Rawley started barking from the bedroom.



"That's enough," I called from the kitchen. This sometimes works for a minute or two.



Not this time.



I washed my hands, and was drying them on a towel as a walked down the hall. "Rawley, stop bothering Kyrie, you little..."



I stopped. Rawley was standing next to the bed, every inch of his body bristling with indignation.



Kyrie was sprawled out on my bed, chin tucked protectively over the two brand new dog toys my friend Dawn had sent them the day before, and which Rawley had been playing with ever since I took them out of the box.



Kyrie looked at me over the toys. "Rawley said he wanted to play," she explained. "This is a new game. I call it 'taunting the puppy.'"

Video: What if the Tea Party was black?

Every Tea Partier who goes all wide-eyed and dismayed when their movement is accused of racism should watch this video... but of course, they won't.

Lyrics and credits here.

Just when you think things are getting better, they get worse

So, I stand before you a free woman.

No, I was not recently released from prison.

I'm simply trying to put the best frame I can on the reality, which is that the collapse of our economy took my mother's estate with it and got my house.

I didn't actually think this could happen, because the house was underwater on the mortgage. And if I'd had the money to fight them, it probably wouldn't have happened, but the estimate to fight was between $40 and $75 thousand dollars in lawyer's bills, which I don't have, and even if I did, piling it on top of the existing "underwater" debt on the house would have been, well... even more financially nuts than trying to hold onto it in the first place.

I'm pretty heart-sick. I've had to spend a small fortune in legal fees, it's been agonizingly stressful at a time when I was already stressed out over a lot of work issues (fortunately TOO MUCH work, not too little!), and I feel like I'm losing a part of my life and the place where I lived with my mother and cared for her while she was dying. This is where I lost Rebel, too, and my beautiful deerhound Rosie, who died shortly after my mom and I moved into this house.

I can't say too much about the case, as in my experience, blabbing about your legal woes on teh interwebz tends to bite you in the ass, but believe me, I had lawyers and they were aggressive and thorough.

Despite my misery, I realize I'm also lucky. Lucky this didn't happen while my mom was still alive, as she'd have never been able to stand it. Lucky that I was making enough money to care for my mom when the economy went to hell -- even two years earlier that wouldn't have been the case. And lucky that my sister in law's twin sister just happened to have a small house for rent -- she'd wanted to sell, but decided to wait for a better market, and had decided to rent the house out just days before this all happened.

The house is darling, it has a yard, it has an ocean view, it's in my same general neighborhood, and while it's no longer walking distance to the park -- boo -- it's only two blocks to my brother, sister in law, and nephew's house -- yay! It's a safe place for me to  get over this and decide what's next in my life. The rent is a little more than I'd have liked to spend, but I can afford it. And it has no stairs, which considering I'm about to have knee surgery is a definite plus.

Anyway, that's my sad story, certainly not the first I've posted, but hopefully the last. This last year and a half has been the most hellish since the early days of the AIDS epidemic, and my mom's final illness was worse even than that. I'm torn to shreds and don't think I could handle one more disaster, and am just hoping I can keep it together enough to get myself and the dogs through the move.

I don't normally like to post these big long personal things, and I certainly know MANY of you are dealing with worse situations than this. I just haven't been as active lately as I normally am, and every day I feel such powerful nostalgia for those elusive things called "free time," "sense of fun" and "creativity,"  and I wanted to let you know what was up.

Mandatory spay/neuter laws: Follow the (lack of) money

Why don't mandatory spay/neuter laws  work? The answer is dollars and cents.

Today in the United States, the pet dogs and cats of well-off people are overwhelmingly already spayed and neutered. And of those low-income people whose pets are unaltered, most indicate they want to have them spayed or neutered, and would do so if the service were available (many have no transportation) and affordable.

From a study conducted by Alley Cat Allies and published in the peer-reviewed  Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association:

The study, “Population characteristics and neuter status of cats living in households in the United States,” found that family income was the single strongest predictor of whether pet cats living in households are neutered. Over 90% of cats in households earning $35,000 or more per year were neutered, compared to 51% of cats in households earning less than $35,000.

For those who need to see it to believe it, Alley Cat Allies created this graph:



By the way, I don't even want to hear from those of you who believe that low-income families shouldn't be allowed to have pets. There are a thousand reasons I feel that way, not the least of which is it's cruel, but let's go with this one: Not only are kids who grow up with pets happier and better adjusted -- an effect that is greater in low-income and disadvantaged children -- they also have the valuable experience of bonding with an animal, and will grow up to continue to care about animals.

Laws that make spay/neuter mandatory are by definition targeting poor people, the majority of whom already want to spay/neuter their pets but lack the resources to do so. By creating an added financial burden to keeping their pets in the form of fees, penalties and fines, such laws only make the problem worse, and result in more surrendered pets and thus, more shelter deaths.

The "killer app" here is to provide free and accessible spay/neuter to the pets of low income people, with additional targeting for those animal populations that contribute to specific local shelter intake -- pit bulls, unowned or free-roaming cats, Chihuahuas, etc.; whatever the local problem might be.

Pass these laws without doing that, and you'll end up killing more pets, spending more money, and hurting poor people.

Do that, and you won't need the law.

Stop SB 250: Act today to fight forced spay/neuter in California

From Save Our Dogs, an action alert for those of us who oppose using spay/neuter of animals as a form of punishment for the behavior of their owners, penalizing poor pet owners during the worst economy of most of our lifetimes, and who think that we should be supporting proven strategies for ending the killing of animals in shelters instead of passing laws that have never accomplished that goal  anywhere they've been tried.

Today Senator Florez pushed through amendments to SB 250.  The amendments, which can be found here, are not yet in print.  The amendments are very minor, and do nothing to address the reasons to oppose this bill.



Senator Florez may push for an Assembly vote as early as (today) or Friday.



If you do not want mandatory sterilization for dogs and cats in California, it is critical that you call or fax the office of your Assembly member today.   It takes less than 1 minute to politely tell the person who answers the phone — or leave a polite message — along the lines of:



“Hello, my name is [your name  ] and I live in [ name of city  ] California.  I am calling to ask Assemblymember [  ] to continue to oppose Senate Bill 250 – mandatory spay-neuter for dogs and cats – when it comes up for a vote.  The recent amendments do nothing to change any of the reasons for opposing this bill.  Thank you.”



You can find your California Assembly member here.

Save Our Dogs has a list of representatives who voted "no" or abstained before here.



We all want to save the lives of shelter animals. That's why this bill is such a bad idea. It creates the impression we're doing something to achieve that goal, but it will have the opposite effect, diverting animal care dollars to enforcement and punishment, and increasing intake -- putting even more strain on an already over-taxed shelter system.



If we want to save animal lives in California, let's do what Delaware just did, implementing programs that have already been proven to do just that, instead of going down a path leading in the opposite direction.



Update 1: Bob Alvarez, the chief of staff for Sen. Dean Florez, author of this bill, just told me that senate rules would prevent this bill from being voted on today (Thursday). I’m watching it for further developments.



Update 2: From Alley Cat Allies:

We need your help today! As early as tomorrow, the California Assembly will vote on S.B. 250, a bill harmful to cats. Thanks to your calls and emails, we successfully urged the Assembly to vote this bill down last summer. But the bill is back up for consideration, and it is just as bad now as it was last year. We need you to urge the California Assembly to stop this bill once again.



Please act now and urge your Assemblymembers to oppose S.B. 250.



S.B. 250 is bad for cats:

• The bill targets people who care for stray and feral cats. Any caregiver unable to trap and neuter a cat would be labeled a lawbreaker under the bill. Cat caregivers should be encouraged, not threatened with violating the law. By discouraging feral cat care, the bill could actually send more feral cats to pounds and shelters. Feral cats are not adoption candidates, so being sent to a shelter is a death sentence.



• The bill also targets low-income families and their pets. A recent peer-reviewed study by Alley Cat Allies found that among low-income owners of intact pet cats, cost was one of the main obstacles to spaying and neutering. But the bill does nothing to lower the cost or expand the availability of spay/neuter services.



• According to the California Department of Finance, the bill would cause more owners to surrender their animals. This would increase spending costs to state and local governments for the impoundment, care, and killing of more animals.

Take action today! Tell the California Assembly that this bill would hurt cats, harm caregivers and owners, and unnecessarily cost California money.



Help us stop this bill: urge your Assemblymembers to oppose S.B. 250 today.

Mandatory spay/neuter bill in play again in California

Well, just see what ugly little"mandatory spay/neuter in disguise" bill just reared its head in the California legislature.



SB 250, which we've written about extensively during its first incarnation, came off the inactive list yesterday and could be voted on at any time.



Concerned Dog Owners of California has more information now, and they and Save Our Dogs should have an action plan later today or tomorrow. We'll continue to follow this.



Because it was amended in the Assembly, the bill will have to be voted on by the Senate again... and if the Senate changes it, it will go back to the Assembly. We still have an opportunity to point out why this bill is bad for poor people, bad for pets, and just bad law.



Keep watching for more information.

Damn lies and cat statistics

Heard the one about the cat in the stat?



I'm talking about the seemingly endless list of cat statistics wielded with enthusiasm by everyone from the staunchest cat advocate to the fiercest cat enemy. You know, how a single unspayed cat can produce enough cats to cover the earth twice over in a week?



For my SFGate.com column this week, I spoke to our own Gina Spadafori, Vox Felina blogger Peter J. Wolf, and Pulitzer Prize-winning science writer and science journalism professor Deborah Blum.

"I kept coming across some very dubious claims," (Wolf) told me. "And the more I'd dig into them, the worse it got. You'd start out thinking there was broad support for a particular claim, but you'd start drilling down a little bit and see all the references supporting that claim pointed to the same flawed study. So this 'broad support' became questionable."



[....]



"Take the estimates of how many birds are killed each year by cats," he said. "A 1993 article usually called 'the Wisconsin study' is constantly being cited, with an estimate that between 8 and 219 million birds were killed by free-roaming rural cats in that state."



But 15 years ago, study co-author Stanley Temple told the Sonoma County Independent, "The media has had a field day with this since we started. Those figures were from our proposal. They aren't actual data; that was just our projection to show how bad it might be."



Despite that apparently definitive disclaimer, Wolf discovered that the study and those numbers are still being cited in such publications as the New York Times (2007) and the Journal of Conservation Biology (2009). Even the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cites the study, he said.

There are a number of reasons why these kinds of numbers gain traction, some related to cats specifically -- people who hate cats, the sheer scope of the real threats to bird populations, like habitat destruction and pollution -- but the problem extends far beyond the cat issue.

Pulitzer-prize winning science writer Deborah Blum feels Wolf's pain, too. Blum, a journalism professor at the University of Wisconsin - Madison, said, "In science journalism, we spend a lot of time looking at this particular problem. Why do some numbers get this bizarre traction? Why do people believe it, when if they did a little digging they'd find it's not only wrong but in some cases even does harm?"

Why, indeed? Find out here.

Avocado ice cream? Now I know the end times are here

This is just wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. AVOCADO ICE CREAM? Really?